According to Johannes Turmair (Bayerische Chronik & Deutsche Chronik) there was a succession of Teutonic kings stretching back to the Great Flood, ruling over vast swathes of Germany and surrounding regions until the 1st century BC, and involving themselves in numerous events from Biblical and Classical history. These rulers and their exploits are mostly fictitious, though some are derived from mythological, legendary or historical figures

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Puzzler 454

Btw: personally I think the list with the Teutonic Kings and their adventures by that 16th century writer is sort of a bomb under the OLB...

.

Probably a stupid question, but why?

The other tribe, that wandered about in the neighbourhood, called themselves Franks, not because they were free, but the name of their first king was Frank, who, by the help of the degenerate maidens, had had himself made hereditary king over his people.

Mention of Frank. Degenerate maidens...lol I love this OLB, it's better than Atlantis.

The other tribe, that wandered about in the neighbourhood, called themselves Franks, not because they were free, but the name of their first king was Frank, who, by the help of the degenerate maidens, had had himself made hereditary king over his people.

Mention of Frank. Degenerate maidens...lol I love this OLB, it's better than Atlantis.

Why? Check the kinglist.

None of the Germanic names comes even close to those in the OLB.

The ones that are the same, like Ulysses (Ylsing) are of course similar...

As I quoted, the list is made up of mythical, legendary personalities plus historical personalities, and taken from Biblical and Greek sources.

I am sure this Johannes Turmair wanted to create an 'alternative history' for the German people, like the Scots did for the Scots, the Irish did for the Irish, the Franks did for the Franks, and so on, and so on.

And read why he did it... the Pope and his merrymen. Could that Bavarian Chronicle have inspired any Frisian in the 19th century? For instance 'someone' in close contact with Grimm (you know who)??

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Puzzler 454

As I quoted, the list is made up of mythical, legendary personalities plus historical personalities, and taken from Biblical and Greek sources.

I am sure this Johannes Turmair wanted to create an 'alternative history' for the German people, like the Scots did for the Scots, the Irish did for the Irish, the Franks did for the Franks, and so on, and so on.

And read why he did it... the Pope and his merrymen. Could that Bavarian Chronicle have inspired any Frisian in the 19th century? For instance 'someone' in close contact with Grimm (you know who)??

(NO, please don't start again...forget the Pope, lol)

OK, I get it now, I think. You think the OLB writers might have taken some of these names and used them so it's a bomb because it catches them out using these names??

Abramelin 2,499

OK, I get it now, I think. You think the OLB writers might have taken some of these names and used them so it's a bomb because it catches them out using these names??

But if only one or 2 of them are in the OLB, why the fuss?

LOL, no, I don't think you really got it, sorry.

It's not about the names, it's about the idea behind it all: an alternative history to show a nation's history to be far greater and impressive than it actually was.

++++++++++++++++++++

EDIT:

Alewyn already said something about the "boere" in Southern Africa.

Well, the Frisians always felt discriminated against by the Hollanders, because the Hollanders considered them to be nothing but "stomme boeren" (literally, stupid farmers). Nowadays calling someone a "boer" or "stomme boer" is still very insulting, and it means nothing but knucklebrain or moron.

But the Frisians thought the Hollanders were arrogant sons of... and did their best - the Halbertsma family first of all - to prove them wrong.

And in some places (I know of the province of Groningen, but also in other non-Holland provinces in the Netherlands) they still consider the Hollanders arrogant s.o.b.'s , LOL.

It's not about the names, it's about the idea behind it all: an alternative history to show a nation's history to be far greater and impressive than it actually was.

++++++++++++++++++++

EDIT:

Alewyn already said something about the "boere" in Southern Africa.

Well, the Frisians always felt discriminated against by the Hollanders, because the Hollanders considered them to be nothing but "stomme boeren" (literally, stupid farmers). Nowadays calling someone a "boer" or "stomme boer" is still very insulting, and it means nothing but knucklebrain or moron.

But the Frisians thought the Hollanders were arrogant sons of... and did their best - the Halbertsma family first of all - to prove them wrong.

And in some places (I know of the province of Groningen, but also in other non-Holland provinces in the Netherlands) they still consider the Hollanders arrogant s.o.b.'s , LOL.

(Btw, I am one of those Hollanders, heh)

.

That may be so but I think it goes much deeper than that and wonder why this all started in the first place, Okke Scharlensis(?) was writing 10th century was it..

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Alewyn 2

A "Bavarian Herodotus" from the 16th century created a list of Teutonic kings, heroes and rulers, starting right after the Flood, around 2200 BC... "ruling over vast swathes of Germany and surrounding regions"... " fighting on the side of the Trojans".... "involving themselves in numerous events from Biblical and Classical history".... "these rulers and their exploits are mostly fictitious, though some are derived from mythological, legendary or historical figures"... a chronicler having problems with the Pope and the Roman Catholics...

Not one single name (OK, a few do) in that list even sounds similar to what we read in the OLB, but what this Turmair wrote sure as hell looks like a centuries old variation on and precursor of the OLB theme to me.

.

Abe, i.m.o. the most important part here is the date of 2200 BC. This date keeps on cropping up all over the world - whether in myths, ancient scribes, archaeology, climatology, etc. We must face up to it that something very dramatic happened at the time.

Secondly, the list seems to talk about people that lived East and North-East from Frisia. One would therefore not expect to see OLB names amongst them. In fact, I would suggest that had the names been similar, it would have proven that the OLB was copied from these "older" writings. As it stands, it would seem that the OLB was written quite independetly from these old "Germanic" writings, even though the time frame may be the same.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Alewyn 2

Alewyn I don't understand why you are skirting around religion. After all it is, and has apparently been a major influence on man since well before the age of the written word.

Now I understand you don't wish the thread to degenerate into a punch and counter punch centred around religious belief which is fair enough.However why leave out such a huge piece of history for fear of a perceived idea? I'm sure the moderators on here will control that in any case.

Flash, It is not that I want to avoid the topic. In fact, I would love to get into a debate about it with Puzzler or anyone else. The problem is that it will totally detract from, and derail this discussion as Abe rightfully said.

We have been going with this debate for some 9 months now and we still have not reached any agreement. A discussion on religion, and more specifically Christianity, will be the same and, most likely, be more emotional. Sometimes I must force myself not to respond to Puzzlers utterances.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Abramelin 2,499

Abe, i.m.o. the most important part here is the date of 2200 BC. This date keeps on cropping up all over the world - whether in myths, ancient scribes, archaeology, climatology, etc. We must face up to it that something very dramatic happened at the time.

Secondly, the list seems to talk about people that lived East and North-East from Frisia. One would therefore not expect to see OLB names amongst them. In fact, I would suggest that had the names been similar, it would have proven that the OLB was copied from these "older" writings. As it stands, it would seem that the OLB was written quite independetly from these old "Germanic" writings, even though the time frame may be the same.

Wait a minute: the Frya Empire was all over Europe according to your and many other's interpretation of the OLB, and that includes the territory of the Germans.

This was my idea about the territory of the Fryans (the encircled part):

And because of that, even if the Frya Empire was nothing but southern Sweden, plus Denmark, plus the Netherlands, plus Belgium, plus (north-)west Germany and the Baltic coast of Germany, and plus northern Poland, even then this kinglist should include several of the OLB rulers.

The 2200 BC date is of course based on Biblical chronology (and I would really like to find that Bavarian Chronicle). Btw, the start of that kinglist is not 2194/3 BC, but 2214 BC. Close enough, but no cigar, lol.

Well, something did happen around 2200 BC, and that is a change in weather patterns all over the world. But we also had a Little Ice Age during and after the late Middle Ages, but nothing points to some major catastrophic and world-wide disaster like a comet impact or something. It could have been caused by Icelandic volcanoes erupting and/or a change in sea currents.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Abramelin

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Alewyn 2

If you wholeheartedly believe the OLB as much as it appears you do Alewyn you will realise this is no one else but Jesus they speak of and you should give it your BEST attention. Not gloss over it as though it wasn't part of the book.

Puzzler, It is not correct that I "wholeheartedly believe" in the OLB. I do believe that most of the historical facts, as far as I could verify it, are correct.

I accept that the OLB's "Jessos of Kashmir" is supposed to be "Jesus of Nasareth". You will notice in my book, however, that I suspect this is the one part of the OLB that is not true and as I stated, I am of the opinion that this is some "disinformation" that was slipped in centuries later and written as though this "Jessos of Kashmir" lived ca. 593 BC and that he was also known as Buddah and Krishna.

You must remember that there was a lot of animosity between the (Catholic) church and non-Christians during the first millenium AD. I suspect that the person who fabricated this bit in the OLB could not distance him/herself from the message of Jesus Christ but, nevertheless, wanted to discredit the "Christian" church of the time.

As I stated in my book, the fact that "Jesus of Nasareth" lived at the start of the first century AD has been proven beyond any doubt from both Biblical and non-Biblical sources. One can argue whether he was born in 6 BC or a few years later, or whether Christmas should be 25 December or 20 March or whatever specific date. The date of his birth, however, is not out by almost 600 years as the OLB states. In addition, Jesus of Nasareth was not a contemporary of Buddah and Krishna.

I did not write too much in my book about this because I simply do not know and did not want to get embroiled in unfounded speculation.

I have read widely on the history of the church and I can assure you the Popes and Church in the Middle ages were, i.m.o., evil personified. Fortunately Christianity has come a long way since then.

I do not subscribe to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church but there is one book I can recommend that was written by a Catholic. It is called "The History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson. I do not think it is in print anymore but if you can find it, it is an excellent read (with all the blood and guts that goes with it)

Abramelin 2,499

Puzzler, It is not correct that I "wholeheartedly believe" in the OLB. I do believe that most of the historical facts, as far as I could verify it, are correct.

I accept that the OLB's "Jessos of Kashmir" is supposed to be "Jesus of Nasareth". You will notice in my book, however, that I suspect this is the one part of the OLB that is not true and as I stated, I am of the opinion that this is some "disinformation" that was slipped in centuries later and written as though this "Jessos of Kashmir" lived ca. 593 BC and that he was also known as Buddah and Krishna.

You must remember that there was a lot of animosity between the (Catholic) church and non-Christians during the first millenium AD. I suspect that the person who fabricated this bit in the OLB could not distance him/herself from the message of Jesus Christ but, nevertheless, wanted to discredit the "Christian" church of the time.

As I stated in my book, the fact that "Jesus of Nasareth" lived at the start of the first century AD has been proven beyond any doubt from both Biblical and non-Biblical sources. One can argue whether he was born in 6 BC or a few years later, or whether Christmas should be 25 December or 20 March or whatever specific date. The date of his birth, however, is not out by almost 600 years as the OLB states. In addition, Jesus of Nasareth was not a contemporary of Buddah and Krishna.

I did not write too much in my book about this because I simply do not know and did not want to get embroiled in unfounded speculation.

I have read widely on the history of the church and I can assure you the Popes and Church in the Middle ages were, i.m.o., evil personified. Fortunately Christianity has come a long way since then.

I do not subscribe to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church but there is one book I can recommend that was written by a Catholic. It is called "The History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson. I do not think it is in print anymore but if you can find it, it is an excellent read (with all the blood and guts that goes with it)

Alewyn, I know about your sensitivity concerning this, but could you please stop about it??

This will go nowhere at all, it will only derail this thread.

This thread is about an ancient manuscript. Period.

I really LOVE this thread, but I don't want it to become a thing about who knows more about Jesus/Christianity and similar things.

I am not an admin, but I am quite sure that if the two of you keep bickering about this OFF-TOPIC thing that no one interested in the OLB is interested in, the admins will CLOSE this thread at some point.

I don't want that to happen, and no one else interested in the OLB wants that to happen.

"Flash, It is not that I want to avoid the topic. In fact, I would love to get into a debate about it with Puzzler or anyone else. The problem is that it will totally detract from, and derail this discussion as Abe rightfully said."

Now take your own advice at heart.

.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Abramelin

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Otharus 4

Well, the Frisians always felt discriminated against by the Hollanders, because the Hollanders considered them to be nothing but "stomme boeren" (literally, stupid farmers). Nowadays calling someone a "boer" or "stomme boer" is still very insulting, and it means nothing but knucklebrain or moron.

In the war, those "boeren" were suddenly very popular, specially in the notorious "hongerwinter" of 1944...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Otharus 4

Well, something did happen around 2200 BC, and that is a change in weather patterns all over the world. But we also had a Little Ice Age during and after the late Middle Ages, but nothing points to some major catastrophic and world-wide disaster like a comet impact or something. It could have been caused by Icelandic volcanoes erupting and/or a change in sea currents.

We should be aware that when the text about the big flood (that could be read on the walls of all the burgs) was copied in the 6th century BC, the story was already some 16 centuries old. That means that, although without doubt it had been a big disaster for the Fryans, part of it may have been dramatic exaggeration.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Otharus 4

Secondly, the list seems to talk about people that lived East and North-East from Frisia. One would therefore not expect to see OLB names amongst them. In fact, I would suggest that had the names been similar, it would have proven that the OLB was copied from these "older" writings. As it stands, it would seem that the OLB was written quite independetly from these old "Germanic" writings, even though the time frame may be the same.

I would have to study those German texts to have a solid opinion about it, but it seems to me that they are similar to the Frisian historiography of the same period; partly based on older sources and/or oral tradition and partly based on fantasy (similar to our gossip magazines LOL).

If there are similarities between the 16th century sources and the OLB, it can either mean that one has inspired the other, or that they are both based on an older (possibly <partly> true) source.